When it comes to ensuring fair compensation for creators for the use of their works by AI, we should not get bogged down in copyright disputes relating to AI training, such as the validity of text and data mining or opt-out solutions. It would be far more promising to develop legal frameworks for AI providers and platforms that offer AI-supported applications and enable, produce or distribute AI-generated outputs. This approach was outlined by legal scholar Professor Malte Stieper in his short presentation during the GenKI-IR event on 8 June 2026 at the Forum for Digital Technologies in Berlin.
In front of an audience of around 100 participants, Prof. Stieper thus directly followed on from the GenKI position paper on fair AI remuneration, which was published during the event both digitally and as a printed handout and made available for attendees to take away – just like the two other GenKI position papers on the labelling of AI outputs and on data protection in the use of AI. Each of the three handouts contains 10 theses setting out innovative approaches to the legal framework for the use of AI tools and applications.
The position papers also form part of the comprehensive GenKI report ‘Rethinking the AI Legal Framework’, which was likewise published during the event. In it, the team behind the research project “GenKI-IR – Generative AI: Innovation and Law in Work Processes” reflects, amongst other things, on the in-depth discussions with experts and users, the findings of which were incorporated into the position papers.
Both the GenKI Report and the GenKI position papers have been published under a free CC licence and are available to download.
The title and central theme of the event was the question of whether our legal system and our society are AI-ready. The event brought together perspectives from politics, research, the cultural and creative industries, public administration and civil society. In her keynote speech, Professor Linda Kuschel (Bucerius Law School) examined the potential, side effects and questions of responsibility surrounding AI-generated information.
In further presentations, Sven Hilpisch (Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information) and Sabrina Konrad (Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property) addressed the interplay between the GDPR and the AI Regulation, as well as Switzerland’s approach to establishing a fair legal framework for AI. Following this, musician Nina ‘Miu’ Graf (PRO MUSIK) outlined the developments in the music industry and for society brought about by AI-generated music, whilst Paul Keller (Open Future) looked at the prospect of EU-wide regulation. With his proposal for a far-reaching ‘disruption levy’, he also built on the ideas developed by Prof. Stieper and in the position paper.
As with the panel discussions, the conversations during the concluding get-together clearly demonstrated that the debate surrounding generative AI extends far beyond technical innovation, that innovative solutions are required to ensure a fair regulatory framework, and how important interdisciplinary dialogue is for reconciling social responsibility with practical applicability.
